Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Ivermectin for Prevention and Treatment of Covid-19 Infection

journals.lww.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

521–530 of 644 posts

Re: Ivermectin for Prevention and Treatment of Covid-19 Infection

#521

Post by robbiep »

argvargc wrote: post #417
robbiep wrote: post #412

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Because a prophylactic means taking it regularly in order to avoid catching it, with the implication of the poster’s statement being that ivermectin, which carries significant risks when taken by a human at various doses, was the cause of the person going to ICU

Exactly. Just because someone doesn't dose something correctly, doesn't mean there is necessarily anything wrong with it. Shall we ban water? Sometimes people don't dose that correctly either, and drown. What a dangerous substance!

Your absurdist attempts aside, the important thing to consider with a prophylactic medication is the therapeutic index.

Let’s take vaccines. Covid itself has a risk of harm of around 1:100 for older age groups of requiring hospitalisation. Risk of harm for vaccines is established at around 1:200,000.

Ivermectin? There is no good data on the therapeutic index however it is a toxic substance with a low therapeutic index and a narrow therapeutic window.

The sensible thing given the available data is to encourage vaccination. Barring that, masks and social distancing. And of course there are places where both there is no vaccine supply, and social distancing is economically in feasible. Is this a use case for ivermectin? Most data says no because establishing TI and TW and ensuring adequate safety of dosing is logistically about as difficult as maintaining social distancing.

Good chat

Re: Ivermectin for Prevention and Treatment of Covid-19 Infection

#522

Post by ghoward »

spadez wrote: post #504
ghoward wrote: post #453

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What about long-term effects of the vaccines?

I asked why Covid vaccines are absent from VAERS list of reportable AEFIs https://vaers.hhs.gov/docs/VAERS_Table_of_Reportable_Events_... And the person you are responding basically said that the new vaccines are so safe that it didn't have to be on that list. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=27513984 I don't mean this as a personal attack on that user, but It is really concerning how blind and apologetic some pe…

I agree. I just hope that such blindness doesn't affect us. I worry that it will.

Re: Ivermectin for Prevention and Treatment of Covid-19 Infection

#523

Post by XorNot »

iammisc wrote: post #484
Nursie wrote: post #331

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> rallying round a drug like a football club That’s what gets to me too, and this is the major issue I had with Trump saying anything about anything. He was floundering to look like he had a plan and the moment he mentioned HCQ he turned the whole thing political. It was massively irresponsible. It should be left to medical science, which is doing pretty damn well with vaccinations and treatments like dexamethasone.…

> mentioned HCQ he turned the whole thing political. Trump first mentioned it as a possibility and investigation and that he was taking it after consulting with his doctor. That's it. The media made you think otherwise. Telling the public what drugs he's on is fine.. shouldn't we know what drugs POTUS is taking? And the people who politicized it were medical journals who published fake studies with no data or vetting…

All the times Trump promoted hydroxychloroquine: https://www.forbes.com/sites/andrewsolender/2020/05/22/all-t...

Trump ongoingly and repeatedly pushed hydroxychloroquine, criticized published research showing it was ineffective, and most likely lied about taking hydroxychloroquine seeing as how no evidence or independent confirmation that he was on the drug ever surfaced.

It was not a one off thing, and it was not "mentioned as a possibility".

Re: Ivermectin for Prevention and Treatment of Covid-19 Infection

#524

Post by stewbrew »

goldemerald wrote: post #7

I heard about Ivermectin for the first time this week and was shocked how much it seemed that I had stepped into conspiracy theory land. There seemed to be an overwhelming amount of evidence over the last year that this repurposed drug is effective at treating Covid during a variety of stages (preventative, first positive test, ICU admittance, and even long haul). But since there hadn't been a randomized trial the dr…

You're commenting on a metaanalysis that summarizes 15 published trials, aren't you? Maybe you should spend less time on YouTube inspired guessing. Social media isn't relevant here. YouTube is not the center of the Galaxy. Medical doctors don't make their decisions based on YouTube videos -- at least I hope so.

Edit: sorry for the wrong position in the thread. Should have gone to the parent post.

Re: Ivermectin for Prevention and Treatment of Covid-19 Infection

#525

Post by XorNot »

darwingr wrote: post #517
_Wintermute wrote: post #114

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Dexamethasone is off patent, it's cheap and widely available, it's also the standard of care for covid-19 patients on respiratory support. What's the difference between dexamethasone and hydroxycholoroquine/ivermectin/next-consipracy-theory? It's been proven to work. There's no conspiracy, just pharmacology is hard, and people's random hunches typically don't work out.

I'll answer, assuming you asked with some good faith. Not every statement of doubt or disfunction is an allegation of conspiracy. Dexamethasone effectively treats the late, inflammatory stage of COVID19 where most virus is dead but still physically present. The promise of other licensed medications is partially from their antiviral properties which means they're only expected to be effective as early stage medication…

You've managed to miss the point entirely.

The point is that Ivermectin worked, Merck would be pushing it hard because it's a heck of a lot cheaper to make an existing drug you already make then get through R&D and clinical trials for a brand new drug which doesn't yet exist.

Re: Ivermectin for Prevention and Treatment of Covid-19 Infection

#526

Post by throwawaysea »

goldemerald wrote: post #7

I heard about Ivermectin for the first time this week and was shocked how much it seemed that I had stepped into conspiracy theory land. There seemed to be an overwhelming amount of evidence over the last year that this repurposed drug is effective at treating Covid during a variety of stages (preventative, first positive test, ICU admittance, and even long haul). But since there hadn't been a randomized trial the dr…

Related post from Matt Taibbi on his Substack, about Bret Weinstein with a short interview of him. With recent takedowns of his videos, many viewers are anticipating his channel will be banned outright by Google/YouTube: https://taibbi.substack.com/p/meet-the-censored-bret-weinste...

Re: Ivermectin for Prevention and Treatment of Covid-19 Infection

#527

Post by void_mint »

effie wrote: post #462
void_mint wrote: post #410

Earlier quoted context omitted.

All of your recent comments are anti-vax and covid conspiracy propaganda. Company also does not have a G. They are low risk, as has been proven over and over again.

> All of your recent comments are anti-vax and covid conspiracy propaganda. Please read this site terms of use. Post only substantive comments that contribute to discussion and avoid name-calling, and shallow dismissals.

I have read them, and my comment was substantive. A person’s bias is important to call out, as was pointing out the obvious lie that was implying the vaccines aren’t low risk.

Re: Ivermectin for Prevention and Treatment of Covid-19 Infection

#528

Post by 4bpp »

XorNot wrote: post #520
4bpp wrote: post #315

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> If someone died because of a "Take Ivermectin and you'll survive COVID" video on YouTube, who's to blame? How about the person who took it? We are presumably talking about adults, who we supposedly simultaneously trust with choosing a government that decides over life and death for millions in their own country and abroad.

Ah the "well we're not responsible if the fuel tank catches fire, the problem is you crashed the car" defense.

Cars are marketed by car manufacturers as a safe and reliable way of getting from A to B; Youtube is (to my best knowledge) not marketed by Google as a source of safe and reliable life advice. The better car analogy would be someone who procures metal plates, household cleaner and a school textbook with an illustration of how internal combustion engines work and winds up blowing themselves up with the creation, and even there the textbook author still puts more of a society-backed stamp of approval on the content that was employed than Google does.

Re: Ivermectin for Prevention and Treatment of Covid-19 Infection

#529

Post by Lammy »

gcbirzan wrote: post #263
slumdev wrote: post #249

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Actually, it does. It starts with data. Sure, we can't conclude from his N=1 experiment that it definitely works. But Youtube wants to conclude from N=0 that it definitely doesn't work, and they don't want the peasantry asking questions.

It doesn't start with "my wife didn't get sick after getting treatment X". This is not data, this is noise.

How about “These milkmaids didn’t die of smallpox after contact with the udder pustules of this sick cow”? Maybe they’ll even name something after it!

Re: Ivermectin for Prevention and Treatment of Covid-19 Infection

#530

Post by bmarquez »

boredprograming wrote: post #421
apineda wrote: post #299

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Well the covid vaccine comes with some caveats to me most crippling to freedoms being the vaccine passports that seemingly all nations are already implementing. Having various viable treatments would obviously put an end to that. Since ivermectin has a long history of safety and already largely available its reasonable that interest is strong.

for all the talk of "vaccine passports", not a single state has done it. Biden said he wasnt going to do it months ago. Not a single country has done it in all of the earth. if I was so worried about such a thing i might start to think maybe I was being manipulated to fear something that didnt exist. Nobody has implemented vaccine passports. And nobody will. But the idea of a treatment even close to effective as a va…

> for all the talk of "vaccine passports", not a single state has done it

New York's Excelsior Pass is a vaccine passport, and has been called such by New York Times and other sources.

https://www.nytimes.com/2021/06/09/nyregion/excelsior-pass-v...

https://www.msn.com/en-in/money/topstories/new-york-s-excels...

Post reply on HN